Impact of large scale, multicomponent intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor overuse in integrated healthcare system: difference-in-difference study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how a large scale, multicomponent, pharmacy based intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor (PPI) overuse affected prescribing patterns, healthcare utilization, and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference study. SETTING: US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, in which one regional network implemented the overuse intervention and all 17 others served as controls. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals receiving primary care from 2009 to 2019. INTERVENTION: Limits on PPI refills for patients without a documented indication for long term use, voiding of PPI prescriptions not recently filled, facilitated electronic prescribing of H2 receptor antagonists, and education for patients and clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who filled a PPI prescription per 6 months. Secondary outcomes included percentage of days PPI gastroprotection was prescribed in patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, percentage of patients who filled either a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription, hospital admission for acid peptic disease in older adults appropriate for PPI gastroprotection, primary care visits for an upper gastrointestinal diagnosis, upper endoscopies, and PPI associated clinical conditions. RESULTS: The number of patients analyzed per interval ranged from 192 607 to 250 349 in intervention sites and from 3 775 953 to 4 360 868 in control sites, with 26% of patients receiving PPIs before the intervention. The intervention was associated with an absolute reduction of 7.3% (95% confidence interval -7.6% to -7.0%) in patients who filled PPI prescriptions, an absolute reduction of 11.3% (-12.0% to -10.5%) in PPI use among patients appropriate for gastroprotection, and an absolute reduction of 5.72% (-6.08% to -5.36%) in patients who filled a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription. No increases were seen in primary care visits for upper gastrointestinal diagnoses, upper endoscopies, or hospital admissions for acid peptic disease in older patients appropriate for gastroprotection. No clinically significant changes were seen in any PPI associated clinical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent intervention was associated with reduced PPI use overall but also in patients appropriate for gastroprotection, with minimal evidence of either clinical benefits or harms.

Self-administered acupressure for veterans with chronic back pain: Study design and methodology of a type 1 hybrid effectiveness implementation randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is prevalent and disabling in Veterans, but effective pain management is challenging. Clinical practice guidelines emphasize multimodal pain management including evidence-based complementary and integrative health treatments such as acupressure as a first line of care. Unfortunately, the ability to replicate interventions, cost, resources, and limited access are implementation barriers. Self-administered acupressure has shown positive effects on pain and can be practiced anywhere with little to no side effects. METHODS/DESIGN: The aims of this Type 1 hybrid effectiveness implementation randomized controlled trial are 1) to determine effectiveness of a self-administered acupressure protocol at improving pain interference and secondary outcomes of fatigue, sleep quality, and disability in 300 Veterans with chronic low back pain, and 2) evaluate implementation barriers and facilitators to scale-up acupressure utilization within Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Participants randomized to the intervention will receive instruction on acupressure application using an app that facilitates daily practice for 6 weeks. During weeks 6 through 10, participants will discontinue acupressure to determine sustainability of effects. Participants randomized to waitlist control will continue their usual care for pain management and receive study materials at the end of the study period. Outcomes will be collected at baseline and at 6- and 10-weeks post baseline. The primary outcome is pain interference, measured by the PROMIS pain interference scale. Using established frameworks and a mixed methods approach, we will evaluate intervention implementation. DISCUSSION: If acupressure is effective, we will tailor strategies to support implementation in the VHA based on study findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05423145.

Trends in Health Care-Associated Infection Prevention Practices in US Veterans Affairs Hospitals From 2005 to 2017.

Importance: Health care-associated infection (HAI) is associated with substantial harm. To reduce HAI, the largest integrated health care system in the United States-the Veterans Health Administration-was an early adopter of infection prevention policies and initiatives. Whether these efforts translated into increased use of practices to prevent HAI in Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals is unknown. Objective: To evaluate changes over time in infection prevention practices and the perception of the importance of infection prevention to hospital leadership. Design, Settings, and Participants: For this survey study, every 4 years between 2005 and 2017, infection preventionists were surveyed at all VA hospitals on use of practices associated with common HAIs, including central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and (beginning in 2013) Clostridioides difficile infection. Data analysis was performed from February 1, 2019, to July 1, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported regular use of key infection prevention practices and perceived importance of infection prevention to hospital leadership. Results: Between 2005 and 2017, 320 total surveys were completed with response rates ranging from 59% (73 of 124) in 2017 to 80% (95 of 119) in 2005. Use of 12 different infection prevention practices increased. Since 2013, 92% (69 of 75) to 100% of VA hospitals reported regular use of key infection prevention practices for C difficile infection and CLABSI. In contrast, adoption of many practices to prevent CAUTI, although increasing, have lagged. Despite reported increases in the use of some practices for VAP such as semirecumbent positioning (89% [79 of 89] in 2005 vs 97% [61 of 63] in 2017, P = .007 for trend) and subglottic secretion drainage (23% [19 of 84] in 2005 vs 65% [40 of 62] in 2017, P < .001), use of other key practices such as daily interruptions of sedation (85% [55 of 65] in 2009 vs 87% [54 of 62] in 2017, P = .66) and early mobilization (81% [52 of 64] in 2013 vs 82% [51 of 62] in 2017, P = .88) has not increased. Antibiotic stewardship programs are now reported in nearly every VA hospital (97% [71 of 73]); however, some hospitals report practices for microbiologic testing for HAIs (eg, 22% [16 of 72] report routine urine culture testing in 2017) that could also contribute to antibiotic overuse. Conclusions and Relevance: From 2005 to 2017, reported use of 12 different infection prevention practices increased in VA hospitals. Areas for continued improvement of infection prevention practices appear to include CAUTI, certain VAP practices, and diagnostic stewardship for HAI. The reported adoption of many infection prevention practices in VA hospitals was higher than in non-VA hospitals. As hospitals continue to merge and health systems become increasingly integrated, these successes could help inform patient safety broadly.

Testing implementation facilitation of a primary care-based collaborative care clinical program using a hybrid type III interrupted time series design: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination of evidence-based practices that can reduce morbidity and mortality is important to combat the growing opioid overdose crisis in the USA. Research and expert consensus support reducing high-dose opioid therapy, avoiding risky opioid-benzodiazepine combination therapy, and promoting multi-modal, collaborative models of pain care. Collaborative care interventions that support primary care providers have been effective in medication tapering. We developed a patient-centered Primary Care-Integrated Pain Support (PIPS) collaborative care clinical program based on effective components of previous collaborative care interventions. Implementation facilitation, a multi-faceted and dynamic strategy involving the provision of interactive problem-solving and support during implementation of a new program, is used to support key organizational staff throughout PIPS implementation. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation facilitation strategy for implementing and sustaining PIPS in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The secondary aim is to examine the effect of the program on key patient-level clinical outcomes-transitioning to safer regimens and enhancing access to complementary and integrative health treatments. The tertiary aim is to determine the categorical costs and ultimate budget impact of PIPS implementation. METHODS: This multi-site study employs an interrupted time series, hybrid type III design to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation facilitation for a collaborative care clinical program-PIPS-in primary care clinics in three geographically diverse VHA health care systems (sites). Participants include pharmacists and allied staff involved in the delivery of clinical pain management services as well as patients. Eligible patients are prescribed either an outpatient opioid prescription greater than or equal to 90 mg morphine equivalent daily dose or a combination opioid-benzodiazepine regimen. They must also have an upcoming appointment in primary care. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide the mixed methods work across the formative evaluation phases and informs the selection of activities included in implementation facilitation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of PIPS. DISCUSSION: This implementation study will provide important insight into the effectiveness of implementation facilitation to enhance uptake of a collaborative care program in primary care, which targets unsafe opioid prescribing practices.

Mind the gap: results of a multispecialty survey on coordination of care for peri-procedural anticoagulation.

To understand how physicians from various specialties perceive coordination of care when managing peri-procedural anticoagulation. Cross-sectional survey of cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) in an integrated health system (N = 251). The survey began with a vignette of a patient with atrial fibrillation co-managed by his PCP, cardiologist, and an anticoagulation clinic who must hold warfarin for a colonoscopy. Respondents' experiences and opinions around responsibilities and institutional support for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation were elicited using multiple choice questions. We examined differences in responses across specialties using Chi square analysis. The response rate was 51% (n = 127). 52% were PCPs, 28% cardiologists, and 21% gastroenterologists. Nearly half (47.2%) of respondents believed that the cardiologist should be primarily responsible for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation, while fewer identified the PCP (25.2%), anticoagulation clinic (21.3%), or gastroenterologist (6.3%; p = 0.09). Respondents across specialties had significantly different approaches to deciding how to manage the clinical case presented (p < 0.001). Most cardiologists (60.0%) would decide whether to offer bridging without consulting with other providers or clinical resources, while most PCPs would decide after consulting clinical resources (57.6%). Gastroenterologists would most often (46.2%) defer the decision to another provider. A majority of all three specialties agreed that their institution could do more to help manage peri-procedural anticoagulation, and there was broad support (88.1%) for anticoagulation clinics' managing all aspects of peri-procedural anticoagulation. Providers across specialties agree that their institution could do more to help manage peri-procedural anticoagulation, and overwhelmingly support anticoagulation clinics' taking responsibility.

Predictors of Use of Monitored Anesthesia Care for Outpatient Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in a Capitated Payment System.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for gastrointestinal endoscopy has increased in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as in fee-for-service environments, despite the absence of financial incentives. We investigated factors associated with use of MAC in an integrated health care delivery system with a capitated payment model. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using multilevel logistic regression, with MAC use modeled as a function of procedure year, patient- and provider-level factors, and facility effects. We collected data from 2,091,590 veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy during fiscal years 2000-2013 at 133 facilities. RESULTS: The adjusted rate of MAC use in the VHA increased 17% per year (odds ratio for increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.27) from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. The most rapid increase occurred starting in 2011. VHA use of MAC was associated with patient-level factors that included obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, higher comorbidity, and use of prescription opioids and/or benzodiazepines, although the magnitude of these effects was small. Provider-level and facility factors were also associated with use of MAC, although again the magnitude of these associations was small. Unmeasured facility-level effects had the greatest effect on the trend of MAC use. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective study of veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy from fiscal year 2000 through 2013, we found that even in a capitated system, patient factors are only weakly associated with use of MAC. Facility-level effects are the most prominent factor influencing increasing use of MAC. Future studies should focus on better defining the role of MAC and facility and organizational factors that affect choice of endoscopic sedation. It will also be important to align resources and incentives to promote appropriate allocation of MAC based on clinically meaningful patient factors.

Comparing Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Prevention Programs Between Veterans Affairs Nursing Homes and Non-Veterans Affairs Nursing Homes.

OBJECTIVE The impact of healthcare system integration on infection prevention programs is unknown. Using catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention as an example, we hypothesize that US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes have a more robust infection prevention infrastructure due to integration and centralization compared with non-VA nursing homes. SETTING VA and non-VA nursing homes participating in the AHRQ Safety Program for Long-Term Care collaborative. METHODS Nursing homes provided baseline information about their infection prevention programs to assess strengths and gaps related to CAUTI prevention via a needs assessment questionnaire. RESULTS A total of 353 of 494 nursing homes from 41 states (71%; 47 VA and 306 non-VA facilities) responded. VA nursing homes reported more hours per week devoted to infection prevention-related activities (31 vs 12 hours; P<.001) and were more likely to have committees that reviewed healthcare-associated infections. Compared with non-VA facilities, a higher percentage of VA nursing homes reported tracking CAUTI rates (94% vs 66%; P<.001), sharing CAUTI data with leadership (94% vs 70%; P=.014) and with nursing personnel (85% vs 56%, P=.003). However, fewer VA nursing homes reported having policies for appropriate catheter use (64% vs 81%; P=.004) and catheter insertion (83% vs 94%; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS Among nursing homes participating in an AHRQ-funded collaborative, VA and non-VA nursing homes differed in their approach to CAUTI prevention. Best practices from both settings should be applied universally to create an optimal infection prevention program within emerging integrated healthcare systems. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:287-293.

The use of multiple qualitative methods to characterize communication events between physicians and nurses.

Despite the importance of communication to patient safety in hospital settings, we know surprisingly little about communication patterns between physicians and nurses, particularly on general medical-surgical units. Poor communication is the leading cause of preventable adverse events in hospitals, as well as a major root cause of sentinel events. The literature provides little guidance on what qualitative methods are best for capturing different types of communication events and patterns. The purpose of this study was to develop a methodology for identifying and characterizing communication events between physicians and nurses to better understand communication patterns on general medical-surgical units. We used a sequential qualitative mixed method design beginning with general observation, progressing to shadowing and focus groups of physicians and nurses who worked on two medical-surgical units at one academically affiliated U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital. Each data collection method (observation, shadowing, and focus groups) had its own advantages and disadvantages for capturing communication events and patterns. Through observation we were able to see the "what": communication activities. Shadowing was most useful for understanding "how" physicians and nurses communicated. Focus groups helped answer "why" certain patterns emerged and allowed us to further explore communication events within a group setting. By using all three methods we were able to more thoroughly characterize communication events than by using a single method alone, providing a more holistic picture of how communication occurs on an inpatient medical-surgical unit.

Applying mindful evidence-based practice at the bedside: using catheter-associated urinary tract infection as a model.

We introduce a mindful evidence-based practice model to operationalize mindfulness to improve bedside infection prevention practices. Using catheter-associated urinary tract infection prevention as an example, we illustrate how clinicians can be more mindful about appropriate catheter indications and timely catheter removal.

Whom should we profile? Examining diabetes care practice variation among primary care providers, provider groups, and health care facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the amount of variation in diabetes practice patterns at the primary care provider (PCP), provider group, and facility level, and to examine the reliability of diabetes care profiles constructed using electronic databases. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Clinical and administrative data obtained from the electronic information systems at all facilities in a Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) integrated service network for a study period of October 1997 through September 1998. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cohort study. The key variables of interest are different types of diabetes quality indicators, including measures of technical process, intermediate outcomes, and resource use. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: A coordinated registry of patients with diabetes was constructed by integrating laboratory, pharmacy, utilization, and primary care provider data extracted from the local clinical information system used at all VA medical centers. The study sample consisted of 12,110 patients with diabetes, 258 PCPs, 42 provider groups, and 13 facilities. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There were large differences in the amount of practice variation across levels of care and for different types of diabetes care indicators. The greatest amount of variance tended to be attributable to the facility level. For process measures, such as whether a hemoglobin A1c was measured, the facility and PCP effects were generally comparable. However, for three resource use measures the facility effect was at least six times the size of the PCP effect, and for inter-mediate outcome indicators, such as hyperlipidemia, facility effects ranged from two to sixty times the size of the PCP level effect. A somewhat larger PCP effect was found (5 percent of the variation) when we examined a "linked" process-outcome measure linking hyperlipidemia and treatment with statins). When the PCP effect is small (i.e., 2 percent), a panel of two hundred diabetes patients is needed to construct profiles with 80 percent reliability. CONCLUSIONS: little of the variation in many currently measured diabetes care practices is attributable to PCPs and, unless panel sizes are large, PCP profiling will be inaccurate. If profiling is to improve quality, it may be best to focus on examining facility-level performance variations and on developing indicators that promote specific, high-priority clinical actions.

Comparing clinical automated, medical record, and hybrid data sources for diabetes quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relative reliability of medical record and clinical automated data, sources commonly used to assess diabetes quality of care. The agreement between diabetes quality measures constructed from clinical automated versus medical record data sources was compared, and the performance of hybrid measures derived from a combination of the two data sources was examined. METHODS: Medical records were abstracted for 1,032 patients with diabetes who received care from 21 facilities in 4 Veterans Integrated Service Networks. Automated data were obtained from a central Veterans Health Administration diabetes registry containing information on laboratory tests and medication use. RESULTS: Success rates were higher for process measures derived from medical record data than from automated data, but no substantial differences among data sources were found for the intermediate outcome measures. Agreement for measures derived from the medical record compared with automated data was moderate for process measures but high for intermediate outcome measures. Hybrid measures yielded success rates similar to those of medical record-based measures but would have required about 50% fewer chart reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between medical record and automated data was generally high. Yet even in an integrated health care system with sophisticated information technology, automated data tended to underestimate the success rate in technical process measures for diabetes care and yielded different quartile performance rankings for facilities. Applying hybrid methodology yielded results consistent with the medical record but required less data to come from medical record reviews.